ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) type 1. However, it can occur without evidence of symptoms or clinical signs of neuropathy labeled as subclinical neuropathy, which neurophysiological studies can best detect. PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of subclinical neuropathy among children with DM type 1, determine the association with blood sugar control, and evaluate the pattern of nerve involvement in neurophysiological studies. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated 100 children with DM type 1, aged five to 15 years, at least one year after the diagnosis. Subclinical neuropathy was evaluated using nerve conduction study. Glycemic control was assessed using hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). RESULTS: The mean age of subjects was 11.5 ± 0.25 years. The average age at the onset of the disease was 5.95 ± 0.25 years. There were 64 patients who had electrophysiological evidence of peripheral neuropathy. The most observed electrophysiological changes were distal latency abnormalities in the left and right peroneal nerves in 39 and 33 patients, respectively. Sensory nerve amplitude, peak latency, and conduction velocity were normal in all patients (100%). HbA1c level did not show a statistically significant association with the incidence of subclinical neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Subclinical neuropathy was prevalent in children with DM type 1. Poor glucose control was only associated with an increased odds ratio of subclinical neuropathy.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing concern about diagnostic errors and their impact on patient safety. Physicians' diagnostic ability is significantly undermined by certain distractions that can carry potential negative consequences such as diagnostic and management errors. This study aimed to examine the effects of distracting factors for physicians during consultation and their consequent effects on diagnostic accuracy and disease or condition management. METHODS: Family medicine residents at a major training hospital in KSA were randomly assigned to two groups of simulated patients: one group with patients with distracting features and another group with patients without distracting features (the control group). Both groups encountered six simulated patients with different clinical conditions or diseases. The consultation time, accuracy of diagnosis, appropriateness of management, number of outlines of treatment, and simulated patient satisfaction were measured for both groups. RESULTS: A total of 70 simulated physician-patient encounters were conducted with 35 residents. Consultation time was significantly longer for encounters with patients with distracting features, which had a mean time of 7.43 min, compared with encounters with non-distracting patients, which had a mean time of 4.4 min (p value < 0.0001). There were no significant statistical differences in accuracy of diagnosis, appropriateness of management, or patient satisfaction between the two groups. However, residents recommended a higher number of outlines of treatment for patients with distracting features (2.96 for distracting patients versus 2.46 for non-distracting patients; p < 0.011). CONCLUSION: Distracting factors are associated with prolonged consultation time among physicians. Although this study did not demonstrate any effects of distracting factors on accuracy of diagnosis or disease management, these factors are still concerning, especially in complex clinical situations and situations where there is lack of reflective practice. The effects of distracting factors should be minimized to ensure patient safety.
